Glendale council asks staff for more study after library advisory board recommends mockups for Velma Teague Library options

City staff presented analysis of community surveys, facility assessments and cost estimates for the Velma Teague Library on June 24, asking the Glendale City Council for direction on next steps.

The presentation opened with Kimberly Hall, Glendale's director of community services, explaining the background: “At the request of the council, we sought recommendations from the library advisory board regarding Velma Teague Library,” and staff summarized consultant work, survey outreach and facility-condition findings.

Don Farrow, deputy director of libraries, described a community assessment funded in 2022 with a $50,000 Library Services and Technology Act grant that paid for a consultant-led survey and benchmarking. The 2022/2024 outreach produced more than 1,000 total responses (830 online, 174 paper in 2022; later address-based and open surveys in 2024), and the consultant judged the sample sufficient for statistical significance. Farrow summarized that consultant findings showed substantial facility-condition needs at Velma Teague and uneven neighborhood usage patterns.

Michelle Wontanko, director of field operations, reviewed four high-level options and associated consultant cost estimates: option 0 (maintain existing building; estimated $5,000,000), option 1 (renovate in place; consultant estimate $12.9 million escalated for likely construction timing), option 3 (new build in the park; consultant estimate $13.1 million), and option 4 (relocate to the promenade; roughly $8.0 million, including roughly $500,000 for demolition/asbestos remediation and $1.5 million for park re‑amenities). Wontanko also said staff estimated about $2.4 million in “maintenance needed before 2028” to keep the current building operable and highlighted immediate repairs the city planned to present on the council’s regular agenda: “there’s a request to ratify $320,000 approximately to replace this piece of equipment,” she said of the cooling tower, and staff estimated an additional sewer lining at “approximately $300,000.”

Council members asked detailed operational and fiscal questions. Several members said they preferred keeping a downtown library inside Murphy Park rather than the promenade; others urged staff to add option 3 (new building in the park) to mockups. Councilmember Turner said he opposed spending large maintenance sums on a building that might be demolished: “spending $5,000,000 on a building that’s going to be demoed doesn’t seem like a wise investment to me.” Several members asked staff to study interim or mobile library service alternatives while a permanent solution is pursued; staff said they had explored rentable retail space and pop-up/community site options but had found some retail sites cost-prohibitive and were continuing outreach ideas for community-based interim service.

The Library Advisory Board had reviewed the consultant work and recommended that staff prepare preliminary mockups for options 1 and 4 (renovate in place and relocate to the promenade). Council members pressed the advisory board’s recommendation and whether it was a formal, final recommendation; staff said the board wanted more information and mockups before committing to a single recommendation. Council and staff agreed the board would review mockups and the council would have an opportunity to consider a final direction.

After extended questioning about costs, service continuity and community input, councilmembers asked staff to return with more detail and mockups. The council directed staff to bring back additional study and recommended options (Councilmembers asked specifically that staff add option 3 — a new building in the park — to any further mockups), and they requested a special workshop in September or later this fall to review those mockups and funding/timing scenarios.

What the council did not do in the workshop was adopt any binding policy or award construction funds. Staff said the project should be scoped through the city’s capital improvement program if council wishes to advance design and construction funds, and that a bond election would be one funding route (staff said the earliest a library bond election could be placed on a ballot would be November 2026).

The council also discussed the importance of reaching non‑users and underserved residents during further outreach, plus preserving donor plaques and memorial elements embedded in the park site. Council and staff agreed to return with the mockups, refined cost estimates, and options for interim library services before any final decision.